‘Transformers’ And The Necessity Of Judging Books By Their Covers

The general perception of people who write about movies is that trying to see every movie is part of our jobs — how else to develop the most informed opinions about movies? While I acknowledge the general soundness of that logic, I think it’s also true that repeated forced viewings of every terrible movie that comes out is harmful to the brain, and we must take certain steps to protect ourselves. We weren’t built for constant hate watching, to constantly force-view movies we had no interest in. There are a number of older critics whose deterioration speaks to the truth of this. There are times when seeing certain movies not only doesn’t help with the forming of valuable opinions, it’s an active hindrance.

Yes, I’m speaking here of Transformers: The Last Knight, though it’s certainly not the only example (the last Pirates of the Caribbean movie, Dead Man’s Corpse or whatever, also comes to mind). And no, I don’t need to see the latest Transformers movie. I think not seeing it is the proper response. Seeing the latest Transformers movie wouldn’t help me be a better film critic any more than tasting the longest-rotating, most crinkly-skinned gas station hot dog would make me a better food critic. All it would do is trash my palate. That’s not to paint myself as overly delicate, it’s just impossible not to experience these things on a continuum of recent experience. (Would you enjoy All Eyez On Me as much as I did? Probably only if you’d just seen Book of Henry and The Mummy.)

Maybe if this was a brand new gas station I’d never had a hot dog from before, and I hadn’t already donated six-plus hours of my life to their dull, pointlessly complex, incomprehensibly shot hot dogs, than yeah, maybe I’d sample another. But at this point I’d just be knowingly poisoning myself. No thanks, man. You don’t always know, but sometimes you know.

I know, it sounds offensive, to judge an artist’s work sight unseen, but we’re not talking about art here. And nothing against the Transformers franchise, I’ve certainly seen worse. Its job is to sell toys, and that’s fine. Kids need toys. (What else are we going to do, play with them?) But at a certain point the movie industry shifted the bulk of its resources towards intellectual property maintenance, and treating that the way we treat art or storytelling or hell even schlock (I love schlock), only legitimizes the idea that they’re the same.

Assuming the audience’s desire is to see something new, our goals are actively at odds with the studios’, who invariably make the biggest deal and spend the most money trying to maintain their big-name properties (Transformers, Pirates Of The Caribbean) — which are usually based on pre-existing non-movie things to begin with — or on trying to resurrect things they already own. Or maybe even trying to jump start “new” #content universes based on old properties (The Mummy). It’s almost unheard of to see a big promotional push for something that could even generously be considered “new.”

That may make some (timid) business sense, trying to squeeze money out of a properties you already own (can’t have this mummy just sitting down here collecting dust!) and basing future earnings potential on past performance (which ignores the law of diminishing returns, but that’s another story), but what does the audience get out of that?

Nothing. We get nothing. Or more accurately, we get recycled content, and we get some of our best and brightest filmmakers, actors, visual effects artists, etc. diverted from passion projects to expend their finite artistic energy on helping maintain a multi-national’s ancillary revenue stream. It’s somewhat inevitable, but that doesn’t mean we have to participate (let alone cheer it on). There isn’t any difference, artistically, between the fifth direct-to-DVD American Pie sequel and the new Transformers, and I resent the implication that we have to treat the latter as a “happening.” If you’re an investor, it’s a big deal. If you’re a moviegoer, it’s just not. It’s a sad echo of a sad echo.

I have a perfect reason for not seeing most modern day action movies: shakey-cam. For the past 15 years this ‘style’ of cinematography (I don’t consider taking a million shots and putting it into a blender actual ‘cinematography’) has taken all the action out of action movies.

And it makes me dizzy. I literally cannot watch most movies, since this style is all over the map now (I blame shows like ‘the office’ to an extent as well). No joke, some movies I’ll watch and people will be literally doing nothing more than standing around talking and yet the camera makes it seem like you’re in the room with them, while drunk, in high heels, while trying to balance a ball on your head.

I’ve legit given up and changed the channel while watching certain new movies, I honestly felt myself getting physically sick.

I hate the shaky cam, but what’s the alternative? How much CGI is it going to take to make Matt Damon look like a large athletic guy? Are audiences going to be cool with shitty Rocky style fight choreography?

You shut your whore mouth!! Rocky 4 has the best fight cinematography ever committed to celluloid, lol. I thought the choreography in “Creed” was excellent, the way the camera spun around the fighters (again, as if you’re there, but this time it works), and how it was all done in 1 take (or at least made it look that way).

@Schnitzel bob Good point. Hollywood thinks R-rated action movies are the answer. No, John Wick didn’t succeed due to it’s rating, it succeeded because no other action movies today have that kind of cinematography and people enjoyed it. Same with Logan. the success wasn’t the rating, it was a strong, central focused story that had great performances.

I only ever actually sat and watched the very first Transformers, and the rest I have only seen in snippets on cable, and I’m never sure which one it is, so it’s all one jumbled, stupid movie as far as I’m concerned. But I have noticed just enough to loathe the way Michael Bay tries to pander to the whole blue collar lifestyle. Oh, look out, Marky Mark is super protective of his hot teenage daughter, hur hur, that’s just how I’d protect my little girl. Bleh.

Yeah I watched the first one thinking it might be dumb fun but it was just dumb and annoying. The robots are just pointy messes with little differentiation, the humans are awful, and the only robot who died was the black one. It was boring, insulting, and the fights were just clumps of tap out gear.

This is part of the reason I loved Guardians 2 and disliked captain America 3. Guardians seemed like it was actively trying to be different and new in every action sequence, where as Cap 3 seemed like it was just checking boxes. Don’t get me wrong, it can be much worse than Cap 3, but it just seems like the perfect replacement level blockbuster.

So, interest of balance, are you saying that those who do like these movies are idiots who don’t know any better and, in turn, should be told what they can and can’t enjoy?

Also, it is these financial juggernauts that allow the studios to be able to authorise budgets on the less sure bets they release, so for that reason alone they are a good thing overall.

By: Vince Mancini

06.23.2017 @ 7:50 PM

No, if you like these movies, go for it. No judgment, honest. I haven’t liked them, so there’s no reason for *me* to see the fourth or fifth or whatever number this one is.

As for these allowing the studios to spend money on less sure bets… I’m sure that used to be the case, and maybe still is in some small way, but these days it just seems to give them more money to blow when they try to wag the dog trying to create a new franchise with The Mummys and King Arthurs of the world. Not a lot of the big studios taking too many chances it seems.

I thought it was the fourth one for the longest time until I remembered Dark of the Moon happened, so while I do enjoy them, I’m not going to argue they start to meld into one big thing.

As for the “blockbusters allow smaller films” situation, it’s not just a straight take-money-from-here-give-money-to-there scenario.

Sure, there are examples of that, but it also covers actors or directors who sign up to do an event film and have it written into the contract that for them doing so, the studio will greenlight, fund and / or distribute a pet project (so, without the blockbuster, the more intimate movie goes unmade).